Originally posted by ZIM
Yeah- ppl forget that a stated aim for the war was "destabilisation"- we wanted to get Saddam out and break up the way things were headed.
WRT Terrorist hunting methods- I'm seeing the overall strategy as something akin to fishing with a drag net. There's bait [troop presence], concentration of the terrorists in one area [rather than spread across the globe acting with impunity] and the harvest.
Sure, there's other ways. In a sense, the war itself was the Texas fishing approach: Throw dynamite in the lake. 
Put more seriously & coldly: If you want to develop Intelligence quickly, start a war.
Doesn't that option seriously hamper nation building by attracting war to the region we're trying to build? And won't the Iraqis piece together that that was part of our intention? And haven't they been told that the US is out to hurt them for years by their previous regime, even when the US wasn't bombing? And doesn't that all make more, not less, enemies, who can only hope to win win by guerilla action against a superior regular army, or by acting as locals supporting such action?
The two Americans that all Iraqis probably know the names of are George Bush. In a region of the world rife with royal lines and nepotism, won't they consider one the continuation of the other? Wouldn't this alienate the kurds that Christopher M was just talking about, and regardless of the reality of it, won't the present situation seem like a continuation of the previous George Bush's Kurdish debacle?
And isn't the key al queda enemy who actually ordered the decisive blow against the US on 9-11 most certainly NOT in Iraq? In fact, isn't he likely in a nation that is supposedly our ally?
I suppose I could see the case that we're trying to continue to draw our enemies to Iraq, but terrorists related to al queda have not been containing their conduct solely to Iraq up until now, and I suspect that terrorists do not, at this point, need to draw their forces from elsewhere endlessly when they can better recruit within the disputed territory. In addition, our supposed allies in the middle east seem to harbor the really important terrorists.
I just can't see the scenario in which the terrorists would need to mass to an extent that would provide us with anything more than a stalling manuever, unless they saw a chance for a decisive blow, and their best bet is to wait and force our military occupation to lengthen before they're even considering that, no?
Wouldn't they be better off letting the situation in Iraq remain at its present level, and instead focus on retaking the difficult to hold regions of Afghanistan that they have been taking and retaking for years? I'm sure the threat is still there.
This is my point. Right now, the thinking seems to be "think positive and our actions will succeed". There seems to be a disconnect between the reality of middle east-US relations and what they are assumed to be(moldable by US propaganda and short memoried) by the administration. There also seems to be a disconnect between what loyalty the administration thinks it has and what it actually has, as well as the already crumbling admin-press relations entirely caused by the administration's total fumbling of the media.
It just seems to me it's already a longshot plan, and having a child of entitlement in the oval office whose family is inextricably tied to the causes of these problems(in the US sense), matched with a VP who comes off as an oil Baron, places our men at more risk than anything the press or liberals could do. Oil barons and Bushes risk our men directly by stealing the war of any sense of legitimacy. We can talk all day about Kerry being no good, but anyone other than Bush would simply be the president, Bush is George Bush, with all the conflicts of interest that entails in middle eastern affairs.
We can't change the military situation with much ease, but the political one is easily changed. One might not agree with Michael Moore's approach to enacting that change, but Bush himself has made more than ample use of media soundbites made up of hyperbole and half truths without conservatives getting all up in arms, why should they about Moore's comments?
I would use a blue eyed, blond haired Chechnyan to ruin you- Drake on weapons
Reply With Quote
